Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble

The Kway Teow Man has posted, in my opinion, the best analysis of the Jobs Credit scheme. He is all for Jobs Credit (as I am), and he explains in a very easy to understand way why Jobs Credit is a viable scheme. It’s something extremely worth reading, although it is insanely long.

If you have already made up your mind that the Jobs Credit is a piece of thrash, then don’t bother reading because you won’t be able to appreciate the arguments. The PAP doesn’t get things right all the time, but the Jobs Credit Scheme is a pretty decent piece of policy in my opinion, and it doesn’t deserve the brickbats that have been hurled at it.

And if your instinct is to call me a PAP Youth member after reading this entry, please save your time. You are not the first, and you won’t be the last, and I don’t care. I don’t live in pigeon holes, unlike you.

I just read NCMP Sylvia Lim’s suggestion on providing temporary financial relief to those who have been retrenched but yet to find a new job.

The ‘Job Seeker Allowance’ proposal she has put forth is reasonable because of the proposed safeguards to prevent abuse. And, it comes at a fraction of the cost of the Jobs Credit Scheme. Too bad she got shot down by the PAP folks who probably don’t want her to gain any political points, even though it’s a reasonable solution.

Come on, PAP. Sylvia Lim is essentially suggesting aiding people who are trying to help themselves. What is there to disagree with? She’s not advocating giving free money to lazy bums. The PAP doesn’t want to develop a crutch mentality amongst Singaporeans, right? So what’s the problem with Sylvia Lim’s suggestion, other than the fact she’s from the Worker’s Party?

Poor WP MP Low Thia Kiang got verbally roughed up by six PAP MPs yesterday in a discussion on the new Job Credit scheme.

I sympathise with Low because I think he was unfairly attacked. However, Low seemed to have set himself up for attack by being so skeptical of the Job Credit scheme. I think he could have at least given the scheme some due credit. The scheme WILL work for some companies.

I think problem with Low’s argument is that he was not comparing apples with apples. It seems to me the Job Credit scheme was never designed to save jobs for companies that are on the verge of collapse. The scheme is meant to help sound companies lower their costs so that they can continue operating even when demand has dropped significantly. Of course, such sound companies are, in Low’s jargon, already ‘profitable companies’ that doesn’t need help.

Instead of attacking the Job Credit scheme, Low could have proposed something else to help companies that are in dire straits. That would have been more constructive and prevented the PAP MPs from hounding him like a pack of wolves. However, with the Job Credit scheme, I think the government has already made up its mind on which companies are worth helping. These companies are those with the ability to weather the storm.

It is hard to fault the logic on the government because it doesn’t quite make sense to put unsound companies on life support when the same amount of resources could be put to better use with a sound company. The problem is, should the government make decisions on which company to help based on such cold, hard logic? The people who are employed in unsound companies are clearly no less worthy of help than people who are employed in sound companies.

It’s a tough choice to make. Logically speaking, I agree with the approach the government has taken but I think the government could also offer plans to help workers in unsound companies who are in danger of retrenchment. For example, the Job Credit scheme can be extended to sound companies that are willing to take over workers from unsound companies. The notion of saving jobs should not be restricted to jobs currently in a company.

Ultimately, this global recession is nasty business and there really isn’t a perfect solution. For now, I think the current Budget is sufficiently good. We don’t know the actual effects of the proposals until they have been executed so I prefer to wait and see. I do hope that the government will have off-Budget measures to plug any gaps if such gaps surface later.

It seems that there are some people who are quite concerned that the government is setting a precedent (and it seems to be a negative precedent) by signaling its intention of dipping into the reserves during this year’s Budget announcement. I don’t see what is there to worry about. Maybe a little story will illustrate my thoughts better.

Once upon a time, there lived a rich old man. He had a poor and difficult childhood but through a combination of persistence, hard work, shrewd actions and a dose good luck, he managed to build up a business empire and became a billionaire.

Even though he was extremely rich, he kept all his riches in bank vaults. He was so afraid that once he started spending his riches, he will not be able to stop. One day, he had a heart attack and died. As he looked down from the heavens, he realised that he had been a stupid man his entire life. Even though he had accumulated so much money, it is all sitting in the bank vaults and he can’t bring them along with him to heaven.

The moral of the story is that it is seriously stupid to hoard money for the sake of hoarding it. This doesn’t mean one should be a free-wheeling spender, though. Rather, if the situation calls for savings to be spent, then it should be spent. The number of zeroes in the bank account book is meaningless unless the money is actually used to do something.

I think the government is correct to signal that it’s prepared to use the reserves to help Singapore weather the storm if the need arises. This is not an issue of whether it’s a good precedent or bad precedent. It’s an issue of whether the money will be well-spent, and I think it is justifiable to tap on the reserves in a global recession if the need arises.

I’ve been following cyberspace chatter about the newly minted Association of Bloggers Singapore (ABS) with great interest. The poor founding folks appears to be bashed left right up down centre by quite a few local bloggers. I think the negative responses to the organisation is not exactly opposition to the idea of an association but a case of differing assumptions of what it means to be a blogger.

To some people, blogs are like the internet version of a diary. These people view blogs as something personal and private (I think nothing on the internet is private, though) and therefore, there is no necessity for bloggers to get together to form an organization. If one holds such an assumption about blogs, forming a bloggers’ association is probably an idea as absurd as an association for people who pen paper diaries, although I contend that if there are enough people who are interested to do that, why not? As long as enough people want to come together to form an organization around a common interest, they should be allowed to without ridicule, regardless of how _______ (insert a negative adjective) the common interest might appear to others. I believe there is no absolute definition of what constitutes something as being a/an _______ (insert a negative adjective) notion.

For others, blogs are not private diaries but publications meant for public consumption. That being the case, it would make sense for people to want to come together to form an association. I have not had the chance to speak with the founding members of the ABS but from what I’ve read, the motivations for the association include self-regulation and possibly legal representation. Taken from this perspective, a bloggers’ association is not much different from a writers’ association. Self-regulation and legal representation are things that people who blog for public consumption would care about because of professionalism and litigation issues.

At the end of the day, at least for me, all the arguments primarily centre on the identity of a blogger. Is a blogger the online version of a person who writes a personal diary, or is a blogger no different from an author/journalist/columnist/writer who writes for public consumption? Depending on your assumption about what it means to be a blogger, you will either agree with or disagree with the need for having a bloggers’ association.

Personally, I think the association is a great idea per se, but somehow, the association has unfortunately started out on the wrong foot because of, again, assumptions. According to Eastcoastlife’s blog entry,

Singaporean bloggers were like loose sand, they were not united. They were easily manipulated and even banned for standing up against the foreign tyrant from self-proclaimed ‘community meta weblog for Singapore bloggers’. Small bloggers are just too isolated to be able to fight for their rights.

I don’t think anyone can say with confidence that the blogosphere is a homogenous entity. As an example, I am a very different type of blogger compared to Xiaxue or even Eastcoastlife herself. Bloggers are not homogenous grains of sand. I think bloggers are more like different types of fruits or species of animals. Also, it seems to be that there’s an implied assumption that being ‘not united’ is undesirable and the association is meant to ‘unite’ bloggers. I have to take issue with this implied assumption as well. The parts about being manipulated for standing up against ‘the foreign tyrant’ is frankly too much of a stretch. Finally, who constitutes a ’small blogger’ and how do we know if these ’small bloggers’ are ‘too isolated’ to fight for their rights? There is a whole boatload of assumptions about Singaporean bloggers and the blogosphere that are, in all honesty, unsubstantiated.

I think the ABS cannot (and for that matter, will never) be able to speak on behalf of the entire local blogging community. The most the ABS can be is an authority on issues related to blogging in Singapore but it cannot be a representative, unless each and every Singaporean blogger is willing to be a member. Bloggers are not medical doctors or lawyers. You don’t need a license to blog. Therefore, the ABS cannot function like the Singapore Medical Association or the Law Society.

So, what can the ABS do? In my opinion, ABS can perhaps to come up with a code of ethics or conduct to promote responsible blogging. Of course, the idea of what constitutes responsible blogging is a contentious one but I’m not going to go there. I think if the ABS eventually gets enough members, they can take the lead in advancing greater civility (I think the world can always do with more civility) and freedom of expression in the online space. The ABS is in a good position to take the lead in encouraging responsible blogging, starting with its own members.

Also, I do hope for the ABS to consider tiered membership with a tier not requiring membership fees. The reality is that not everyone can pay for membership, and if the ABS wants to be an authoritative voice in the local blogosphere, it needs clout and high membership fees will make the ABS an exclusive club with little teeth. At the very least, the ABS should have at least two types of memberships, namely ordinary and associate. Associate membership can be free of charge but of course, being free means that certain rights will have to be withdrawn, especially the right to vote.

It’s been a long while since I’ve typed such a long entry and I think I’m going to stop here. I think the idea of a bloggers’ association isn’t necessarily a bad one but I think there’s a bitter taste in the mouth now because of the way the association has pitched itself and how different people are having different assumptions about the identity of a blogger and the role of the association. I would give the association some time to develop before I decide whether it’s something that gets my stamp of approval but right now, to those who are quick to criticise the ABS, please hold your horses and don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.